| Author |
Message |
    
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 913
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | 
|
quote:As for Bush, 49 percent of respondents said they approved of the job the president is doing. That number is down from his November approval rating of 55 percent. Bush is the first incumbent president to have an approval rating below 50 percent one month after winning re-election.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/20/poll/index.html
I'll bet W isn't so happy about making this kind of history.
 |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2936
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:31 pm: |
|
And he'd still beat Kerry today. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1405
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Sore Loser |
Straw's world
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4172
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:45 pm: |
|
libs are dumb |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 519
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:02 pm: |
|
cjc, possibly. That doesn't alter the fact that most Americans now think Iraq was a mistake, and that Bush's approval rating has tanked.
MJ, how so? it's a poll. Are you suggesting Dr. W is a sore loser, or the polling company is?
Straw, ...nevermind.
MJ and cjc - I'm just curious - is there anything that Bush or his cohorts (meant in the strictest definition) could do that would make you change your minds about them? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 915
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:16 pm: |
|
maybe I'm the sore loser, and maybe Bush would still beat Kerry today.
but the point of this poll SHOULD be, as far as Bush opponents are concerned, to make sure the Democrats don't roll over and play dead again in '05-'06. I know it will be difficult for them, without spines and all, to go against their congenital duck and cover reflex, but we should all have our email and pen hands ready to write to them and make sure they know that most of the country doesn't approve of what Bush and his cabal are up to. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1408
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Approval rating Tanked???
This poll had a margin of error of 4.5 points, the one in November had a margin of error of 3 points.
In other words, the approval rating is the same as it was, and bringing it up in the form of this post is nothing more than sour grapes.
Oooh oooh there's no mandate, you have to listen to us, we're not irrellevant, the country hasn't spoken... THE COUNTRY HASN'T SPOKEN!!!!
And of course I could change my mind about Bush et al. He could give up in Iraq, Fire Rumsfeld, Raise Taxes (that is what did his dad in), appease France, let Iran become Nuclear, Kowtow to the UN, engage in direct talks with North Korea, replace steel tarriffs, "reach out" to democrats, and/or decide that capturing OBL is more important than spreading democracy to the middle east.
I would sure change my mind then. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 916
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:38 pm: |
|
mj,
Even at 55%, Bush's approval rating would be the lowest for a president at his inaugural, with the exception of Reagan's 51% in 1980. And even Reagan's was arguably better because he had no negative to speak of.
This isn't sour grapes - it's simply pointing out that the chest-thumping, high-fiving, Republicans are talking out of their posteriors when they claim Bush has a strong mandate. It's spin, pure and simple. Bush didn't sweep the country in anything near a landslide. He squeaked back in, and apparently some voters now have buyers' remorse.
The opposition will be relevant, if they choose to be. And if they choose to run and hide, or "reach out" to Bush, they deserve opposition in the primaries in '06. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1409
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Doc,
On November 1st and the morning of the 2nd every Dem here was crowing about how low Bush's approval rating was. Some polls showed it as low as 48% (with a margin of error of 4.5%)
"He can't win with under 50%"
"He's got the lowest approval rating since whoever."
Blah blah blah.
Guess what... Bush's approval rating is around 52% thats within the margin of error of both of those polls, and, oddly enough the percentage of votes he got nationally.
Who'd of thunk it?
Keep grasping at straws if it makes you feel better.
Merry Christmas. |
shestheone
Citizen
Username: Shestheone
Post Number: 107
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:40 pm: |
|
LOL...keep grasping at STRAWS!!!!!!!!! |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 918
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:56 pm: |
|
mj,
go ahead and keep telling yourself it doesn't matter if most Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance if it makes you feel better.
 |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 29
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:21 am: |
|
Dr. O'Boogie,
I normally don't mix it up to much but I enjoy reading it. However, I just want to point out that it doesn't really matter that "most Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance" as you stated. Now I don't believe this to be accurate but even if it were it wouldn't matter. Even if an accurate polled showed that Bush only had a 20% approval rating it still wouldn't matter. He won the election and will be the President for the next 4 years. And with his party in firm control of the Senate and House then he doesn't have anything to worry about.
I can understand that alot of people don't like him but we had an election and he won. So at this point the polls are worthless. He never has to run again so why would he care if a few more people don't like him.
I do like your analysis that the Democrats should try to make some hay out of this in the mid-term elections but the Democrats have a dismal recent history in midterms. More than likely the Republicans will not only maintain the Senate and House, but they will probably pick up some seats and will definitely pick up some governorships.
The Democrats need a game plan and right now their only plan is to bash Bush which isn't really much of a plan. It reminds me of the daily bashing of Clinton by the Republicans (which I didn't care for). The big difference, however, is that the Republicans took back Congress with Clinton in the White House while the Democrats have only lost even more under Bush. Again, the Republicans have had a solid game plan since about the 94 midterms and the Democrats don't. Atleast they have Clinton on their side to make cool speeches and attract the stars. I didn't vote for Clinton but he is one cool dude. I love to hear him give speeches even though I don't agree with the substance.
I can empathize with all the frustration those of you who dislike Bush are feeling but it's just wasted energy. You'll get another chance in 4 years to elect a democrat but I wouldn't hold my breath. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 521
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 10:12 am: |
|
Southerner, I agree with just about everything you're saying except this:
quote:And with his party in firm control of the Senate and House then he doesn't have anything to worry about.
Actually, I think Bush is going to have to play things a little more carefully than he would like. The factions of the Republican party, while not revolting, are starting to feel their oats, of you will. Fiscal Conervatives are going to give him a hard time about Social Security and other social programs. The Religious Right is going to want the Consititutional amendment to bar gay marriage again (though Bush said he thought it ws a state issue at one point). While I think he will have an easier time than if he had a Democratically controlled Congress, it should be interesting to watch the infighting within the Republican party. They will have to try to keep it "in the family" as much as possible if they don't want to appear fractured to their own constituents.
In some states and districts, a strong fiscally conservative Democrat could pose a threat if an opposing candidate is not seen as being strongly supported by the party.
One thing I strongly agree with is that Republicans are much better at playing the game, and getting their s- together. The Democrats really do seem like the Bad News Bears, fighting amongst temselves often as much as they fight against Bush. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 4858
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 10:28 pm: |
|
Also, Republicans in Congress are not lame ducks, as Bush is, so they do have to worry about getting re-elected. There is a chance that they will be more adversarial with Bush than during his first term. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Rastro/Tom,
Your points are valid. However, I was answering the question of this thread about Bush's mandate not individual Congressmen's mandate. I'm not at all concerned with Republican in-fighting. This is politics and was expected. If anyone thought for a second that Bush was going to be handed everything he wanted they were inaccurate. Bush can rest easy knowing he never has to ask for someone's vote again to get elected. Of course the individual Congressmen do and I expect them to do what they have always done and that is panhandle to their constituents more than to the President. Why would they care if the President is mad at them if they don't have a job? And if a fiscally conservative Democrat is in a position to unseat a less conservative Republican then so be it.
From my poliitical point of view the labels of Democrat/Republican don't mean a whole lot. As I stated before I am fiscally conservative and although conservative on the vast majority of social issues I do support certain socially liberal ideas such as gay civil unions (note: I don't support the term of gay marriage).
In my opinion, the Democrats are still reeling from getting white washed. They are trying to push the "Republican Infighting" agenda to soothe their own wounds. I just don't see it happening. Everyone is playing politics and will continue to do so. It's part of the game that we all like to watch. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 532
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Since I'm not a Democrat, and I don't feel wounded from the election, I guess I see the infighting as a product of no longer finding a "common enemy" in the Democrats. Given their shellacking (sp?), while they may not be irrelevant, they certainly hold little sway. So now that the common enemy has been vanquished, the smaller differences are starting to show up. A bit like Checkoslovakia (and others) after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Now, I don't think this will cripple the GOP in the least. I just think that it's not going to be quite the Conservative party party that some are predicting. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 7:44 pm: |
|
Your right. For the next few years the Republicans don't really have a tough political enemy. Pelosi? Please. Hillary is going to lay super low so she doesn't step in anything over the next 3 years. If a fellow Republican feels he has to step outside the box to appeal to his constituents then go ahead. It's a game and that's how you sometimes have to play it. But everyone will be solidly behind the nominee in 2008 unless they completely lose their mind which I doubt. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page